For some reason, this article doesn't show the reference list, the stub classification or the categories but when I go to edit it, the information is there. Can anyone help me as to what the problem it is? Capitalistroadster 11:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this a hoax? Someone verify this. If you are serious, I don't know. But maybe, it seemed like a hoax to someone.

Not a hoax, it was deleted as a self promotion article. ViridaeTalk 12:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How could it be a self promotion article if it was completely factual about me and my life??? Thank you, ScaryThescary1 12:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it was the language of the article archived here. It reads like "This guy is great. I love this guy. You should love this guy too." Then, read something like Brad Pitt. It reads "He was born. He did some things. He isn't dead yet." I didn't delete it, but maybe the person who did felt that the tone make it self promotion. --Kainaw(talk) 12:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. I will pass it on to the the people that created the page. Thank you, ScaryThescary1 12:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I did not create the page. I did however edit it a bit. It was not created nor edited to promote me or my cause. Who I am and what I do is real and everything on the page was accurate. I can understand that it may not have been put together properly and a suggestion of help to create the page to look or read like BRAD PITT as suggested above might have been very helpful. As I and the others that did create the page are new to Wikipedia . . . a few sugestions of help would have been very well received. Thank you, Scary GuyThescary1 13:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what is required to recreate a deleted article in order to rewrite it in an encyclopedic tone. That appears to be what the next step should be. --Kainaw(talk) 13:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe the person that deleted it, could re-instate the article and then the people that created it could fix it with help. it is factual and it was not self promotion. i do understand that my name is very different, so is my Mission to help people around the world. "The total elimination of hate, violence and prejudice worldwide. Maybe the Tattoo's and the look and the Name are or where not believable. I have experienced this before. I have been banned from 2 cities in the U.S.A, 4 restaurants in the United Kingdom and 3 Primary Schools in the United Kingdom (That I Know Of), just because of the way I look. Since it was such a quick delete, with no help from the administration of any kind ? ? ? What is the message here??? Scary24.31.250.3 14:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If by administration, you mean administrators, they are the only ones that have the power to delete articles. According to the speedy deletion policies, administrators can delete articles they feel meet the criteria for speedy deletion on sight. Now the article had two problems- one, it was blatantly self-promotional. It doesn't matter if you created it or not. What mattered is that it portrayed you in a POV manner and promoted your mission. The other thing is, the article didn't make a big assertion of notability, another big problem. I don't see a reason to recreate the article, there wasn't much content. Normally I'd encourage you to try to recreate the article, but if you are indeed this Scary Guy as you claim, then conflicts of interest come into play, in which case I would discourage you from recreating it. The fact is, if the subject is notable enough for its own article, then someone will eventually create it. DoomsDay349 14:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It contains some undefined cant; for example, the word energy appears several times, but from the context, the article does not appear to be using the standard definition of the word. An important part of encyclopedic writing is linguistic precision - it must be possible for anyone of reasonable intelligence and language fluency to determine what the article is trying to say. This requires a style of writing unlike the normal patterns of speech for most people. Most people get away with speaking imprecisely because most people spend most of their time talking to people similar to themselves (with much shared background, prejudices, assumptions, values, etc.).

The article contains no links to other articles on Wikipedia, aside from the two category links at the bottom. Another important part of encyclopedic writing is to fit the various claims and assertions in an article into the overall structure of human knowledge; on Wikipedia we call this building the Web. When an article contains no links to related Wikipedia articles, that is like a red flag to deletionists, who justifiably conclude the article was written by people who haven't made much effort to understand what Wikipedia is about. (Presumably, before The Scary Guy enters a school, he has some idea of why the school exists, and the proper way to behave while in a school, because he spent years in school as a child. An adult who had been raised in a culture that had no schools would probably not know how to behave in one. Wikipedia is more complicated than a school, and yet thousands of new users approach Wikipedia as if they already understand it.) Personally, I would rather see people try to repair an article's problems than delete it, but deletionists have an inherent advantage, because the number of articles with problems is vastly greater than the number of volunteers who have spent the time to learn the skills necessary to fix the problems. Consider that there might only be around 10,000 people who have much understanding of Wikipedia's policies, and there are 4,733,212 articles on the English Wikipedia, and something like 4,000 new article appearing every day. Wikipedia appears to be inundated with new articles, many created by relatively new users who chose to start writing before reading much.

Why would such links matter? For starters, they might help define some of the article's cant, such as what the article might mean by the word "energy," and the behaviors the writers seem to view as "negative." Links to other articles are important for avoiding undue weight and maintaining a neutral point of view. For example, the article vaguely describes The Scary Guy's motivations and actions, but it does not place those things into the larger context of the study of, and debate about, the vast history of social reform movements. (Shortly after humans invented society, humans embarked on an endless treadmill to reform society.) Imagine if the articles about social reformers such as Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, or Adolf Hitler merely outlined the actions of those people without giving any clues about where they got their ideas, not to mention what some of the opposing schools of thought have to say about them. The Scary Guy did not invent every aspect of his current personal philosophy; his original contributions are likely to be minor (because almost everyone's original contributions are minor), and thus his philosophy should be classifiable in some way. Does it have a history? Does it have a name? Has anyone articulated it coherently? Has anyone criticized it? There should be articles describing that philosophy, as well as opposing philosophies, and The Scary Guy's article should link to them.

From a content perspective, the article seems to imply a value judgement about criticism in general - namely, that criticizing people is bad and we shouldn't do it. This immediately raises a number of Elephant in the room questions, such as: what about professional critics? What about critical thinking? What about free speech? (We don't need Constitutional guarantees to safeguard speech that everyone is comfortable with.) Does a coach win the Super Bowl, the World Cup, etc., without criticizing anyone? The most famous and successful people (e.g., Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, etc.) come in for some of the most vicious criticism - might that mean that knowing how to accept and benefit from criticism is an essential ingredient to success? How about teaching children to handle criticism by facing facts, rather than fall apart when someone points out that they can improve?

To its credit, the article does link to some sources. However, that wasn't enough to sway the people who decided to delete it. What to do now? First, The Scary Guy should learn that Wikipedia is one of the most selective wikis. There are many other wikis with different policies, many of which are practically begging for content. I suggest searching WikiIndex for: education and writing an article about The Scary Guy on a wiki that is more interested in adding content than deleting it. If the article evolves into encyclopedic shape on that other wiki, then perhaps someone can try again with it on Wikipedia. --Teratornis 16:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the original invitation, by email, from neantbrice - contributor at Wikipedia, inviting Scary to do exactly what he did... include further information to 'enhance' , as neantbrice phrased it, what The Scary Guy is all about. Scary did not submit the original entry. Or intend to self promote. He has added factual information. He is Real. He is notable. The initial entry was posted by somebody out there who thought so. The entry was brought to our attention by one of your contributors! So now - do you simply delete contributions if users do not 'get it right first time'?. You say: ""When an article contains no links to related Wikipedia articles, that is like a red flag to deletionists, who justifiably conclude the article was written by people who haven't made much effort to understand what Wikipedia is about...and yet thousands of new users approach Wikipedia as if they already understand it"" The situation you describe here that you are experiencing would suggest to me that offering guidance to people who have submitted information in error of the Wikipedia guidelines RATHER than deleting them would be logical. Whatevernext 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See this page: deletionists. The infobox in the upper right corner links to m:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies, which describes the ongoing debate about what Wikipedia should be and how it should operate. Wikipedia is the world's largest collaborative project. Wikipedia is not a single unified intelligent entity. It is instead a community, with many aspects of a battleground and an ecosystem. Check out an ecosystem some time. From a distance, it looks quiet and peaceful, with birds chirping and animals grazing. But the more you study what is really going on, the more you see that an ecosystem is an endless war of everything against everything. Everything is trying to eat something else, or avoid being eaten by something else, while fighting for scarce resources of food, water, sunlight, territory, etc. What is "logical" for lions to do (eat the zebras) is the opposite of what is logical for the zebras to do (run from the lions). However, Wikipedia is not a truly wild ecosystem; it is more like a managed game park, with a hierarchy of wardens presided over by the Great Leader. But within this game park, there are wardens running around in splinter cells, shooting other wardens and some of the visitors, particularly visitors who arrive with preconceived plans to start rearranging things without first taking the time to learn how the game park "works."

I agree that the people who exert the most influence on Wikipedia should try to be informative about their motives and actions - and they have been. Wikipedia is one of the most extensively documented complex systems you will find anywhere. Almost everything you could need to know to function productively here has been written down. All you have to do is read it. Granted, for many people reading is hard work. Most people prefer the personal attention of expert human intelligence - someone to digest the complex rules and interpret them for each person's specific case. Unfortunately, expert human intelligence is scarce and expensive (only the super-rich can afford to hire consultants and attorneys and advisors to relieve them of the need to think and study on their own), and as you may have noticed, Wikipedia is almost entirely a volunteer project. In a volunteer project, everyone is expected to pull their own weight. The way you pull your own weight on Wikipedia is by reading the friendly manuals, rather than expecting someone else to read them for you. It's OK for beginners to ask a few questions, but for the most part, every participant has to read and study a lot of material on their own, because in the long run that is the only method efficient enough for an organization which does not pay its volunteers. Every participant should strive to gain enough expertise so he or she is answering more questions than he or she still needs to ask.

We do have a guideline called: WP:BITE, but the fact that we had to write that guideline should give some clue about how difficult it is to follow in all cases. Wikipedia is fantastically complicated; it has to be, because it is so huge. The massive complexity of Wikipedia, and the dire shortage of knowledgeable volunteers to hold the hands of the massive number of new users makes Wikipedia inherently hostile to new users who don't like to read instructions. However, for people who enjoy reading instructions, and helping to improve the instructions, Wikipedia is a paradise.

We also have a guideline called: WP:SOFIXIT, which is to say that if you see something you don't like about Wikipedia (for example, its hostility to a large fraction new users who don't like to read instructions), the only way that problem will be fixed is if someone does the heavy lifting necessary to fix it. So who will be that person? Would you like to help us fix that problem? Lots of people have complained about it. We don't need more complainers, we need doers. We need someone to solve the problem. That fact that all the smart people already here haven't been able to solve the problem suggests the problem is really hard to solve.

I tried to do my small part by starting the section: WP:WWMPD#If all else fails, try another wiki, to address the daily flood of questions such as this on the Help desk. Wikipedia's Articles for deletion machinery currently does what I consider to be a poor job of informing the people who contributed to articles that get deleted. I'm reminded of the opening section of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in which, if I recall correctly, the Vogon constructor fleet arrived to demolition the planet Earth to make way for an interstellar bypass. The Earthlings protested, claiming they had not been informed, whereupon the Vogons replied that the demolition had been scheduled for years and the plans were duly on file at the Alpha Centauri field office, and yet no humans had objected. The story was set in the present day, so humans lacked interstellar travel and therefore had no awareness of these plans being made for them by space aliens. In much the same way, many users who are new to Wikipedia and discover how easy it is to create new articles usually have no idea of Wikipedia's equivalent of the Vogons and what they do to thousands of new articles per day. --Teratornis 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

""...the article seems to imply a value judgement about criticism in general - namely, that criticizing people is bad and we shouldn't do it."" Teratornis, These are your words and you have made a surface level interpretation. If you were to read the information fully and find out about the content you would see that the article describes how NOT to live in exactly that space of sweeping statements, generalisation, stereotyping, judging, closed minds. (Whatevernext 17:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

I see two things you can do: 1-Talk to the deleting admin and ask him for his reasons. 2-Nominate it for undeletion at WP:DRV. Corvus cornix 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of open and closed minds, those are two basic ways to approach Wikipedia. The closed-minded approach is to assume one already knows how Wikipedia operates (that is, by making sweeping generalizations about what the manuals say without actually reading the manuals), which usually amounts to stereotyping Wikipedia as being something other than what it is. The open-minded approach is to try to empty one's head of assumptions and instead read the friendly manuals to find out how Wikipedia really works, before proceeding. Most people take the closed-minded approach to most things simply because there isn't time to learn everything properly, and this frequently brings people to grief when they stereotype incorrectly. Wikipedia is especially hard to stereotype correctly, because Wikipedia is unlike anything else most people have experienced before.

Another Elephant in the room problem that the deleted article ignores is the unavoidable logical contradictions in its underlying philosophy of political correctness. Nobody can be equally accepting of everyone and everything. Those who claim to be "against" prejudice in the abstract are invariably prejudiced against something when we get down to specifics. For example, they may end up exercising prejudice against people they label as "prejudiced" (which might be, for example, everyone who argues with them about something). Every social movement invariably creates its own outgroups. That's because virtually all humans have some sort of value system, and they unavoidably classify other humans according to how other humans stack up against their values. For example, many people believe murder is wrong, so they tend to have less respect for habitual murderers than for people who share their disapproval of murder.

If Wikipedia didn't have any standards for its articles, the site would quickly turn into a complete mess. That fact that it is difficult to write articles here that stick is a big part of why Wikipedia is now one of the world's most popular Web sites. Unlike a random Web page controlled by a single author, on Wikipedia we know that everything is subject to merciless review.

We are digressing from the subject at hand, which is why the article got deleted. Article deletions are fully understandable (and debatable) in terms of Wikipedia's documented policies. The correct way to object to an article deletion is to examine the arguments for its deletion and show how they did not accurately reflect the Wikipedia policies they claimed to reflect. Read WP:WWMPD and keep reading it until you understand. The practical strategy, as I already stated above, is to try another wiki. --Teratornis 18:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for your feedback.

I know understand why the information about me was deleted.

And yes, this is in fact The Scary Guy. I was just reading what someone else created about me and found it was deleted. And I simply asked . . . WHY. It is clear now.

Thanks again. Scary

HELLO TERATORNIS RE Your Comment above ""Speaking of open and closed minds"" I referred only to your actual words, which were: """...the article seems to imply a value judgement about criticism in general - namely, that criticizing people is bad and we shouldn't do it."""

And I say to you again that this is not implicit in Scary's work. There are no references to ""criticism being bad and people shouldn't do it"" at any stage in his work. In fact - just the opposite - although I won't discuss that here, as that really would be digressing!!! I said to you ...If this is what you perceived (as you wrote the words, I take them to be a reflection of what you perceived) from your look at the article, then, you, in what you wrote, have made a surface level interpretation of what Scary actually says. And you are not accurate. I make no reference to Wikipedia, and no assumptions as to how it works. I am in the process of discovering about Wikipedia and how it works.

I would ask you again, why you (Wikipedia) would not reinstate the article? For example at the point at which it was in a basic form. For example, when neantbrice (a Wikipedia contributor) emailed us and invited us to add information.

Here is his email again:

rm email, again

Until we received neantbrice's email we didn't even know we were on Wikipedia! But we were really pleased when we heard. We had no intention of Self Promotion. Now we know more of the guidleines. We're happy for others / or us to make any changes so that it meets the guidelines. Whatevernext 217.44.52.14 19:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed when looking at "My Watchlist" page, all the articles are followed by either a positive green number or a negative red number, sometimes in bold, sometimes normal font, and all of varying values. Could someone please explain what the numbers mean? Thanks StephenBuxton 12:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been adding citations wherever possible, but I'm not certain if I've been using the right format. I've had a look at the page that helps you with citations, but other than telling me I'm supposed to use a certain format, I'm still none the wiser. Could someone help me, please? StephenBuxton 12:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia:Citation templates? If you use them, you can't easily go wrong with the formatting. Can you give a few examples of citations you added so we can take a look at them? - Mgm|(talk) 12:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't used those templates, guess I'll have to try. As for a couple of recent citations Deus ex machina (mine is the only citation at the moment, regarding Doctor Who). Also on the topic of The Doctor, I added Blink (Doctor Who), reference number 10. Since then, I have found the need for using that reference earlier in the article. I understand there is a way of using "Name" to double up on references, but not sure how. StephenBuxton 12:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Had a go with Blink (Doctor Who) - Hope that's better. Now all I need to do is understand the multi-use of a reference... StephenBuxton 12:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I revised reference number 10 in Blink (Doctor Who) to a format I typically use. (e.g., Author last, first. (date) Publication. Title. Issue x; page xx.) to complete the footnote, you still need to add the name of the news article to reference number 10. -- Jreferee(Talk) 19:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have the Beatles dolls made by Remco in 1975....John is missing his guitar. Please where can I find one?

You could try ebay, the website, not the article--VectorPotentialTalk 13:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This help desk is where Wikipedia answers questions about Wikipedia. Wikipedia's reference desk is where Wikipedia answer questions not related to Wikipedia itself. reference desk probably is where you want to post your question. -- Jreferee(Talk) 19:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been working on the page Hill City, South Dakota and have noticed a couple of bot edits. They added the following lines at the bottom of the edit page

"lmo:Hill City, South Dakota"

"vo:Hill City"

both were inclosed in double brackets. I was just curious as to what "lmo" and "vo" mean. Thanks Lmielke359 14:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are interwiki links -- links to Wikipedia in other languages. If you look at the article, you'll see, on the left-hand side, a list that provides links to the article in other languages. "lmo" and "vo" are the codes for the languages, just as "en" is the code for English. Check that article and you'll find that Volapuk (which I can't spell correctly for lack of diacritics) is now one of the languages in the list; "vo" refers to Volapuk. --Tkynerd 14:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be so dumb -- but I'm a communications consultant to the Ethics Resource Center -- a non-profit that promotes organziational ethics. I am drafting an original entry (at present, there is no Wikipedia entry about ERC). I understand your basic rules about content, and have the content almost ready. But I CANNOT tell, from any of your instructions or FAQ pages, how to turn the raw content into a page that fits the style of others I have NO training in Web page design and probably do not know most of the technical terms. Do I need to engage someone with that skill, or are there templates where I can plug in the raw copy and have it formatted to fit Wikipedia's style?

This is a great tool and we're eager to post information about ERC as a resource on ethical issues. But I'm totally befuddled by your system! :-)

First, ensure you read WP:COI to ensure you aren't involved in a conflict of interest. Second, there isn't a single "Ethics Resource Center". So, any article titled "Ethics Resource Center" must cover the Ethics Resource Centers in Washington DC, the AMA, Santa Clara University, Dubai... -or- the article should simply be a description of what an ethics resource center is as this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement board for organizations.

As for editing the article, click on ethics resource center and click the "create article" link. Paste in your text and click "Save page". --Kainaw(talk) 15:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I have created a sandbox for you off your userpage, you can find it here. Post your content there and then people from here (who are so inclined) can help you format it. Also please sign your posts with --~~~~ this is so people know who said what. --Fredrick day 15:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi and congradulations on Ethics Resource Center's 85th year in building a stronger, ethical washington. There are so many Wikipedia reliable sources on Ethics Resource Center that Ethics Resource Center meets Wikipedia notablilty and there should be a Wikipedia article on the Ethics Resource Center. The article should be built from Wikipedia reliable sources. Unfortunately, the Ethics Resource Center website is not a Wikipedia reliable source since it is not independent from the Ethics Resource Center topic itself. Your best bet is to approach the Ethics Resource Center's media department and ask them for copies of the newspaper articles that discuss the Ethics Resource Center. You may build the article from those Wikipedia reliable sources and any other that you find. As for making it look like a Wikipedia article, the best way to do that is to look at Wikipedia articles your competitors or others who do similar work and use their piecies of their formats that best fit the article. -- Jreferee(Talk) 19:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How can an article in German Wikipedia be put into the English one?[edit]

How can an artcle in the German wikipedia be put into the Englih one?

Assuming that the article covers a topic that is notable and cites reliable sources, it can be translated by someone bilingual in both languages. Marco polo 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The article Mark Brandenburg covers a baseball player who played for two seasons professionally. However, it is also a common name for the Margraviate of Brandenburg in Germany and is also sometimes used for the Province of Brandenburg or the state of Brandenburg in modern Germany. Of the articles that link to this page, only 6 refer to the baseball player, and 16 refer to the German region. Is there a more efficient solution than the following?

Move the current "Mark Brandenburg" to "Mark Brandenburg (baseball player)"

Create a new headword for "Mark Brandenburg" that redirects to a disambiguation page.

Please use the Reference desk for these types of questions, but: Do your own homework. The reference desk won't give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there's a specific part of your homework you don't understand. Make an effort to show that you've tried solving it first. Dep. Garcia( Talk+ | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I just created an account. The web page said that I was successful. I received an email and clicked the link. I am attempting to login with the user name and password that I registered. I know that I am typing the confirmation words correctly, but it is not recognizing my password or the confirmation words. I cannot login. Can you help? Is there something obvious that I am missing?

I just created my account. The web page said that I was successful. I received an email response. I clicked the web link in the email. I just tried to login and it won't recognize my password or the conformation words. I have carefully checked as I type. Nothing is working. Can anyone help?

user name: Bastedo

There does not appear to be a user with the name Bastedo. See User:Bastedo and special. The logs show that such a user name was never created. Try creating the Bastedo user name again. -- Jreferee(Talk) 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jreferee, but I did try that yesterday and it did deny that I could create the account, that the account already existed. I do also have the email acknowledging that this account was formed. I just tried again to make a new account. The error message says that the name is already in use. I am not sure what gives. Can you look into this further?

Hi dear, This is jon, I face problem when I assembled a desktop PC of Intel D102 MB with 512MB DDRII 533MHZ speed RAM. At first Windows XP SP2 instaled properly but when I came to install driver CD it got hanged the machine. But when I used a 256MB 333MHZ DDRII RAM, its worked properly. Even I take 2 of 256MB DDRII RAM, it gives same problem. What is the best solution of that. Send me on this ID. <email removed> Bye.

This help desk is where Wikipedia answers questions about Wikipedia. Wikipedia's reference desk is where Wikipedia answer questions not related to Wikipedia itself. reference desk probably is where you want to post your question. -- Jreferee(Talk) 19:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Or more exactly the Computing reference desk for questions about computers. Shinhan 20:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Im representing Kelly Services Corp. temporary employment agency. When you go to the Information that wikipedia provides on Kelly Services it says that the article doesnot refrence any sources and another box saying this article was writtenlike an article or advertisement. Is there any way that we can give you sources and get these messages off our Wikipedia page? Thanks,

Yes. Though this is a wiki and you can edit any page, it would be a conflict of interest to edit your own page. What you should do is suggest the edits on the article's discussion page. If it is written like an advertisement, then you may consider rewriting it in a more encyclopedic tone, and asking for someone to read, verify, and update the text to the actual article. tiZom(2¢) 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia reliable sources typically are newspaper articles and information from book and they are best presented as in-line citations (e.g., footnotes). Adding references is not something the help desk does. However, there is nothing wrong with you including the cites in the article. You may get guidance on how to do this by looking at the Wal-Mart article. However, it may be better to work with another editor on this. Terraxos seems to have an interest in the Kelly Services article. You may want to post a note on Terraxos's talk page and request such assistance. -- Jreferee(Talk) 20:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that it is not "your" Wikipedia page. It is a Wikipedia page about your company. And Tomtheman5 is totally correct, discussion on the article's discussion page is the best place for your concerns. Corvus cornix 20:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about adding an article for yourself, then the answer is generally no. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it only covers topics that are noteworthy. See Wikipedia:Notability (people), under the "Creative professionals" sub-heading. If you think you meet these guidelines of notability, it's still not within our policy to write your own article, as it would constitute a conflict of interest. If you are in fact notable, someone else should really be writing an article for you based on reliable outside sources. tiZom(2¢) 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm connecting from an Ip that is banned! Does that have anything to do with it? It is a school and I am not the vandal etc.

Once more - I can login but as I load another page I am logged out and so cannot create new pages etc.

Don't connect at an IP that is banned. That's the only thing I can tell you. -- Kesh 01:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can login but are logged out immediately, one possibility is that your browser doesn't have cookies turned on (if you're at school, unfortunately you might not be able to turn them on); if the cookies are on, try the 'remember me' checkbox or the secure server, both of which can help solve login problems for some people. --ais523 08:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a (completely, obviously) new User, and can't find out how to create a userpage. I followed various links after creating my ID, but in spite of all the info that IS on the "Userpage" page (which tells me in great detail what's allowed and not allowed), there doesn't appear to be anything to tell me HOW to CREATE it.

I work at movie gallery and I read your article. Some of the things in there are wrong.

1. Rentals are for 7 days- not 5 days 2. If you want to exchange a rental you have to bring it back within 5 days of renting it. 3. Rentals have to be in the store before they close to be checked in on time and avoid late fees- the article says customers can return them by midnight. If they do, they will have late fees. 4. Each store is different. Customers have to return the rentals to the store they rented it from. 5. If the rental goes past the due date, the computer automatically checks it out for another week of renting and then the people have to pay for it again. Ex. Person checks out 4 movies (12.99) on a friday and they bring them back the next saturday, that person's extended viewing fee is (12.99) even for one day late.

What is the reason that you would like to request an arbcom? -- Jreferee(Talk) 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be an ongoing dispute with another user, according to Hajji Piruz's Talk page. Looks like they're going through AN/I right now. -- Kesh 01:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You should be familiar with the general procedure for an arbitration case, having been a party to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. With regard to the specifics of filing a case, you edit Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration by copying the hidden template at the top of the edit window, inserting the required information, and posting it as a new section at the top of the page. As noted above, however, you do this only after after exhausting other dispute resolution methods first. Please ask me or one of the other Arbitration Committee clerks if you have any further questions. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I've never requested an arbcom myself. As per the steps, we have tried several of them already, and I even made a peace proposal to the other user, who didnt accept, and continues his behavior. Anyway, the problem is that I dont see the edit template when I click edit.Hajji Piruz 02:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit "template" is the text at the top of the page when you click Edit. Look where it says Current Requests and BEGIN TEMPLATE. Copy & paste that into Notepad or another text editor, write up your request, then paste it at the end of the page, just above the Archives. -- Kesh 02:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for the ArbCom involvement, as User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani is simply wasting community's time. It's clear that the disputes are not of personal but those of content nature, which should be properly discussed on talk pages and agreed upon, something that User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani, who has been through ArbCom already [3], and placed on revert parole for warring, cannot practice. Instead the user files failed RfC [4], targets me and others along national lines [5] and even goes as far as editing my user page without permission or discussion [6]. As you can clearly see, this type of behavior is nothing close to encyclopedic. He is wasting my valuable time, while I edit many other articles, trying to intimidate me. Atabek 06:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to find out why a page is semi/fully protected, who protected it, how long protection is due to remain in place and where can protection be appealed? If replies could be posted on my talk page it would be appreciated. Xarr☎ 22:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Click on the history tab, then View logs for this page, assuming the protecting admin used a block summary, that should tell you why a page is protected--VectorPotentialTalk 22:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that, I knew there must be a way. What is the procedure for getting an article unprotected? Is there a guideline on how long an article should remain protected? Xarr☎ 22:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally you can request unprotection of an article at WP:RFPP, specifically this section--VectorPotentialTalk 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)